| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Iraq | |||
| Iraq Dismisses British Compromise Plan | |||
| 2003-03-13 | |||
| Iraq reveled Thursday in the diplomatic turmoil surrounding U.S.-led war plans and rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's effort to find a compromise over an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein. Blair's compromise would abandon a proposed Monday deadline for Iraq to fully disarm or face war, instead giving Saddam a six-point to-do list of disarmament tasks to avoid "serious consequences." Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said it amounted to the same thing. "It is an attempt to beautify a rejected aggressive project," he told journalists. "(Britain) is trying to polish this project, which has been rejected by the majority of Security Council members." Asked whether Iraq opposed the British list, he said: "Of course. We reject any project contrary to resolutions already adopted by the Security Council." "Which we reject as well." "The United States, with its policy of aggression, wants international cover for this aggression," he added. "I don't think the United States will succeed." France, which had threatened to veto the Monday deadline, also rejected the British compromise because the list of disarmament requirements presumably would come with a short deadline. Germany, a non-permanent Security Council member without veto power, said the plan was unlikely to yield a compromise because it still "basically gives an authorization for war."
Iraqi newspapers gloated over the turmoil. "It is obvious that Bush and Blair have lost the round before it starts, while we, along with well-intentioned powers in the world, have won it," the popular daily Babil said in a front-page editorial. "Blair's future is at stake now, and his downfall will be a harsh lesson in Britain's political history," it said. All this bickering is making them confident that we won't attack. Remember, Sammy still thinks he won GW1. Sabri said a high-level Arab peace mission that was scheduled to travel to Baghdad this week would not come, although he said Iraq had not rejected the visit. "We did not refuse to receive the Arab committee," Sabri said. "They are coming not for tourism. They are coming for work, and this requires measures. We are trying to agree on a time appropriate for both sides." The Arab delegation had been scheduled to meet in Bahrain on Thursday with the Bahraini king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, and then travel Friday to the Iraqi capital. The Arab League decided to send the delegation to ask Saddam to cooperate further with inspectors to prevent a war. In a statement, the league called the postponement "negative" and "ill-timed," saying it "censored Arab efforts ... for finding a way to avert the war and destruction." Sammy thinks he's winning at the UN so he doesn't want to bother meeting with these guys right now. The United States pushed forward with war preparations, moving troops into place just south of Iraq. The U.N. mission that patrols the Iraq-Kuwait border said it would withdraw some of its observers to its headquarters in Kuwait. They announced today all UN observers have left the Iraq side of the border. Guess they know what's coming. Iraq prepared as well, lining the streets of Baghdad with fighting positions and foxholes. Iraqis are "fully ready ... to confront and bury the aggressors," Sabri told the Arab television network Al-Jazeera. "We will turn the land of Iraq into an American graveyard. We will chop off the heads of anyone who tries to violate Iraqi territory."
Yup, they still had POWs after almost 20 years. | |||
| Posted by:Steve |
| #15 There's a plus side to the uncertainty. Think what this is doing to the morale of the Iraqi military machine. Some already tried to surrender for pete's sake. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-14 00:21:28 |
| #14 This entire episode with the UN has been a very interesting period. With 1441 in place, Bush and Blair are with regard to "strong measures" against Sammy. By drawing the process out, he's lent cover to Blair and he's given the rest of the world time to, as he put it, "show their cards." The alliance that's come together isn't the alliance I'd have predicted in October, for the most part. Kuwait, yes; they have reason to want Sammy disposed of. Britain, yes. But prior to October, I saw Australia as leaning toward a Canadian-flavored position. Howard's impressive in his support now. Spain? Where did they come from? They've been cooperative in the war on terror, with lots of arrests, but I didn't expect Aznar to go so far as to climb on board with Bush and Blair. And yesterday Portugal seems to have joined him. Eastern Europe - I expected sympathy, but I didn't expect whole-hearted support. Bush laid out the two sides of the question, Chirac pushed them, and they chose a side. It wasn't Jacques' side, but they're staying on it. The Gulf States? Interesting. They've been there all along. Qatar was an active participant in Gulf War I. I think they're with us because they're throwing off Soddy hegemony. Jordan's with us because they weren't with us last time, and it hurt. The OIC and the Arab League are both continuing a tradition of being ineffectual. Germany - no surprise. They burned their bridge. They'll live with the consequences until the CDU comes back into power. France is a surprise because they're so clumsy. I expected behind-the-scenes opposition, not public ranting. Turkey's a surprise; had they simply lined up and offered support, like Jordan, their position would have been enhanced, especially since the Greeks hold their noses when they look at us. Instead, they haggled and left us hanging at a critical moment, kind of like the French military sometimes does. Now, regardless of what happens in the next month, they're in the same category as Guinea or Angola. Bad move on their part. While all this yapping and maneuvering has been going on, the American people have been coming to accept the necessity of the war. In October, they accepted it somewhat, of course, but by March people are demanding to know why it hasn't started yet. We've been building up to the blow-off and the tension's getting unbearable... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-03-13 20:27:11 |
| #13 To spend so much time saving UN from itself seems to represent a dangerous disconnect from reality. In the meantime the danger to our troops increases. In the meantime people in Iraq are being murdered by a crazy dictator. George is rapidly becoming a French Toast. |
| Posted by: Katherine 2003-03-13 18:10:45 |
| #12 Yes we were short of smart munitions after Afghanistan but I still think going after Saddam right then (Special Forces or CIA guiding a bomb in on Saddam to start) would have caused Iraq to fold and sent shivers through Iran and Syria and we wouldn't have had to build up the big stock we have to now because he wouldn't have been ready for it. Once we'd dominated Iraq and sent the fear of Allah into Iran and Syria we could have started plucking other low hanging fruit using sanctions and diplomacy (a) Syria out of Lebenon! (b) Palestinians stop the bullshit! It would also have ended this waiting game that is preventing our economy from breathing again. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-13 15:06:05 |
| #11 I think the delay was GWB giving Blair every chance possible to make the case to his own people. |
| Posted by: Jon 2003-03-13 14:48:37 |
| #10 This delay served the one purpose: The noise and clamour in NY and the air of frustration in Washington and London combined with the air of adulation in Paris got what Blair and Bush have been looking for: Chirac opened his big mouth and says he would veto all UN further resolutions, deadlines. Thank You Monsieur Chiraq for your support.All of a sudden, Blair is no longer in trouble! Let the troops roll. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-13 14:29:39 |
| #9 I am as frustrated as the rest of us on this UN delaydelaydelay tactic by France & Co. Every kind of BS proposal has been "floated" in the UNSC for weeks. Bush has said NO to the 45 day delay proposal, so he is backing everyone into a corner. The charade is being ridiculous now, totally. Bush has gone to bat for Blair. So this is the end of the line for the UNSC. This whole thing is reduced to vote buying, with France vowing to veto. I have to believe that we are at the end of the line on this and Bush knows it. I keep remembering that we have a quarter of a million troops, ships, planes, the whole infrastructure for war and we are not going to let it sit around. Waiting is the worst time. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-13 14:08:54 |
| #8 Agree with mjh the delay was pragmatic. The delay has additional benefits. 1) allowed US to re-arm with smart weapons (drained during Afghan Battles) and develop better weapons i.e. MOAB; 2) allows US military to deploy without Iraq able to respond (US military centers of gravity are the airports and seaports in the Gulf - not to mention the Suez Canal); and 3) smoked out the "weasels" - those countries not with the US. |
| Posted by: grs 2003-03-13 13:24:36 |
| #7 No way, I think Bush is doing everything right. Remember that he has a good team advising him. With Chiraq rejecting every damn proposal, at some point it's gonna make him (Chiraq) look like a fool, (even more so, that is). In fact, this paves the way for by-passing the UN altogether. If it seems they're not willing to negotiate, why bother? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-13 13:23:08 |
| #6 I think Bush's delay is pragmatic. It allows US citizens to see how useless the UN has become (CBS poll notes that there has been an increase in US support for war without UN approval in the last 2 weeks). Also, let's not forget we need more time to get all of our troops and equipment in position. Once a war has started it will be harder to move our roro's through the Suez for political and security reasons. |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-03-13 11:35:58 |
| #5 I'm with you too, Ptah. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-13 11:17:05 |
| #4 I'm in the same camp with you, Ptah. I'm damn sick of this waffling back and forth with the U.N. It's time to stop talking and start doing. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-13 11:14:25 |
| #3 Only with the explicit support of the mass media and fellow anti-american marxists deliberately clouding the water. That said, I agree: Chriac and Saddam have expertly exploited the resources they have. Question is, is it enough? My approval rating of Bush is sinking every day, NOT because of his push toward war, but for the delays in getting the damn thing started! How much of his "declining support" at home may be due to people like me? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-13 10:41:41 |
| #2 I agree...Bush is becoming as much all talk and no action as the UN. Saddam is definitely proving that he can play the game better than anyone and I agree with him that he did win the first Gulf War. Is he still in power or not? |
| Posted by: Jim 2003-03-13 10:15:52 |
| #1 I think Bush is getting whipped. Looks more and more like France and Saddam call the shots on the world stage, not Bush. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-13 10:08:31 |